1 Why the author choose anthropology as an aspect to view our iSchool's curriculum. If we look iSchool within another context or disciplines, would we come out a different result of HCI-centered curriculum?
2 The author in the end mentions that library and information science has no method of its own and thus should borrow whatever methods best suit the researcher and the topic. What kinds of methods we borrow from other disciplines? How do we know we can combine certain topic with certain methods?
3 How could this curriculum of iSchool can help to or improve or relate to our job hunting, the goal for students who enroll in iSchool.
1. 1. I read Xioning's comment! I read it! forgive me! But I do have the exact same #1 question. The authors chose this approach because Seadles is an anthropologist. They also privilege linguistics because Greifeneder comes from a linguistics background. I found both of these very insightful and fascinating approaches, especially when combined, but I did also wonder how the suggested model curriciulum might differ if using approaches from other tangentially related fields? I would actually like to see a Zins-style paper exploring this (but with completely different organization and formatting in its delivery, it should go without saying!).
2. For all their claims of interdisciplinarity, I was struck with the authors' choice to explicitly ignore the humanities-based roots of library science (and thus information science), with them even going so far as to state that "Instead of classes on the history of the book, iSchools offer classes on human-computer interaction. Instead of studying printing, students take classes in electronic publishing." This dovetails with my comment on the Zhang and Benjamin article (and was quite striking to me as I read these back-to-back): "ignoring the long history of bibliographic and textual studies from the field of English seems short-sighted (especially since arguments about how to define a "text vs. a "work" and tortured discussions about the concept of authorship currently make up the bulk of each week's discussion in my "Metadata in Cultural Heritage Institutions" class!)." I wonder what a similar model curriculum centering the textual studies approaching would look like, how it would differ, challenge, or exceed Seadle and Greifeneder's. And, while I take their points (and, largely, agree), I would definitely make the argument that "traditional" study of books as objects, the history of printing and education, and theoretical explorations of authorship, works, editors, etc. are still vital to understanding library and archives work (which, after all, is still why many - most? - students pursue postgraduate degrees in IS). I wonder if a refutation to this point has been written by anyone from within the I-School movement?
3. On page 10, the authors highlight the need for development of a strong and applicable research methodology for I-School students and scholars. As a first-year, this really hit home; they say students too often have an area of interest, "but have no problem they want to solve and no method to use for analysis." What are some ways into this problem? What methodologies are in use? Borrowed from related fields? Failures? Developing? How do we determine which research methods are best-suited to the I-model, and how might we build in a capacity for evolution as the field continues to expand and change?
2 - Although I've already responded to your question in the Zhang article, I'm curious as to what you consider/identify as the "humanities-based roots of library science" - do you have authors or an historical background where I could learn more? I ask mostly because this is newer territory for me, as an archives student, where our roots are firmly in the legal/political system and have only recently (well..like last century) expanded towards humanities, and my understanding of library history is limited to what I know of Ranganathan and Dewey, neither of whom came from the Humanities (although Dewey was a bibliophile, I believe his degree was in Education.)
1 - Do folks agree with putting HCI in the center of the iSchool diagram? I understand that many human experiences are now mediated by technology, but I don’t always view that as specifically HCI. Yes, I know that Human-Computer Interaction logically makes sense in the most literal understanding, but I would argue that the technology needs and interactions the authors are attempting to encompass with the label are too broad to all fit under the banner of HCI. I’m not sure what I would put in the middle, perhaps “semiotics.”
2 - What I’m seeing and reading from the article, although it’s probably just my own bias, is that iSchools tend to give students the technical skills to do a decent entry-level job, but don’t adequately prepare them for positions as project managers/administrators. For example, AEI might teach a student how to process a collection, but processing is the bare-minimum in terms of job expectations. As discussed in class last week --what type of program are we owed, or should we expect, and what should we learn the hard way by doing things in the real world? I would also be curious to see if people who attend iSchools straight from undergraduate/graduate education fare any differently than those who have previously held full time positions.
1. The authors, both at the beginning and end of their article, site that a strong grasp of linguistic issues is integral to an iSchool curriculum and iSchoolers success in their field. I agree with this to a point, but when speaking of classes students should take, I did not see that they mentioned something akin to a Linguistics 101 course. They also write that there is a need for iSchools to be highly interdisciplinary, but I feel that is already the case. Even looking around our class, you see people with a wide range of undergraduate degrees. I think it simply comes down to being well-rounded.
2. I find it interesting how the authors write about the ‘ecology’ of libraries and other institutions. It makes me think of how people I know speak of the various departments within libraries and archives like a very delicate ecosystems, and any introduction of something new into their ecosystem would interrupt the delicate balance they have cultivated and potentially destroy said ecosystem. Have librarians et al., in the past and possibly currently, really been so adverse to new things? Is that one reason we could say that libraries seem somewhat ‘behind’ or antiquated to many individuals? Is there an aversion to embrace new theories, technologies, and user needs?
3. Towards the end of the article, Seadle and Greifeneder cite that research should be yet another integral part of an iSchooler’s education. But the way that they present this proposal, makes me think that they are simply looking for students to help them with their research. While I agree that understanding research and being able to thoroughly conduct research are important skills to have, I completely disagree with what I see as research for research’s sake. I will make a sweeping generalization by saying that I don’t think the majority of iSchool students are looking for a career in academia, and so I believe, for example, that a focus on research thorough out my two years at the iSchool, would detract from other paths that are more important. What role should research really play in a student of information’s education?
1 - While I consider the iSchool interdisciplinary because people come from a variety of backgrounds, in speaking specifically to UT's program, where I see a serious lack is the school's actual engagement with the rest of the university's academics. Since I work in two programs, I've seen how the iSchool communicates--or fails to communicate--with other specializations. I would love to see a broader exchange of ideas between the iSchool and other academic departments on campus, especially within the Humanities, since Information Science is becoming a popular topic amongst academics who don't always fully comprehend what Information Science is or does. I've also heard from a variety of sources that it can be hard to receive support from the iSchool when pursuing classes outside of the department, or areas of study that don't already have a professor/advisor doing research in those areas. I definitely agree about being more well-rounded! Having a broad understanding of academic research areas will prove useful in the future, as our jobs will almost always have an aspect involving connecting people to appropriate information.
1. I read this paper from the end to the start and surprisingly found that the author put "...2) teach students to think like anthropologists and look at the problems and issues from multiple viewpoints, multiple cultures, and multiple ecologies; ..." in his conclusion. What's the point of connecting anthropology to information studies? Why do we need study information or HCI that was considered the centre of iSchool education with the perspectives of anthropology? Jobs is the master of observing, exploiting and organizing information while I highly doubt he got any trainings concerning anthropology. "If there is a hammer in one's hand, everything looks like a nail in his mind." All is about the occupation of the author, an anthropologist.
2. Putting HCI in the centre of all information service is another unconvincing conclusion in the paper. Information involves hundreds of aspects within its thousand-year development and HCI is just one of them. Though HCI is one of the hottest topic for now, is it really so important in the information field?
3. The author used "iSchool Vs. library school" as the title of one section in the paper. However, is it necessary to put them in the contrary tracks? At some points we can tell that modern technologies concerning information storage and management are the extensions of traditional archiving skills in libraries. In this sense, they are more connected than separated.
1. In this article, the author talked about the methodology of observation and analysis as anthropological traditional methodology. He also discussed the concept of micro-culture. However, I am not sure is there a strong connection between iSchool curriculum provision and anthropology. At the end of this article, the author offers three key principles, one of them are teaching students to think like anthropologists. In this way, it seems like the anthropology become a part of the curriculum but not the methodology of this study.
2. In the last paragraph of “iSchool vs library school”, the author said iSchools are not preparing students for today's libraries but for leadership positions in tomorrow's information infrastructure, which they fully intend to help create. Was the definition too extreme? The iSchools still have the responsibility to cultivate students who want to become librarians or archive. Even for students in iSchool who want to be in leadership positions, they also can have different missions except for transformative.
3. It is true that language both enables and limits the ability to communicate with contemporary information systems. However, I think the author want to demonstrate this point by providing examples of image searching, which is confusing. In the part of “Human-computer interaction at the center”, the author searched “seadle” and "photo of Michael seadle" to find difference but not satisfied with the result. I searched “seadle” and "photo of Michael seadle" in Google Image as he did, found out that the result was becoming better. Maybe the technology developed a lot. Is this technological development related to iSchool fields?
1. When the author argues to put HCI in the center of the iSchool curriculum, his focus is on the retrieval of the information. And his reason for the argument is merely of the prevalence of computer as the tool. I agree to put HCI in the center of iSchool curriculum, but more because of the the human centered perspective, the iterative process, the combination of the perspectives of different fields of HCI.
2. I totally agree to treat IS as a content-defined discipline and borrow methods from other fields that best suit the researcher and topic. This is what HCI is best at. This is also reflected from the Visualizing Archival Data (VADA) project that I work for Dr. Francisco-Revilla and Dr. Trace. APT uses data mining and data visualization in archival science and achieved interesting findings in how archivist organize their collection and the current practice in Texas archives.
3. The author proposes three key principles in designing the iSchool curriculum: HCI, anthropological methodology and awareness of linguistics issues in communicating with computer systems. But what’s the connection between these three? And is there a priority among these three when adopting these principles?
1. In their article, Seadle and Greifeneder discuss the difference between ischools and library schools. They point out the shift in ischools from traditional library classes to a more computer-science based curriculum, and state that “iSchools are sometimes criticized as lightweight computer science programmes and critics say that they have lost touch with
the profession and its past.” Is there validity to this criticism? I think that every time
something changes, there will be people who resent that change and who want things to revert back – especially when “tradition” is involved. However, are ischools losing touch with what libraries are “supposed” to be, or is this current evolution merely a reflection of our changing culture?
2. Seadle and Greifeneder also discuss some additional issues ischool students may have to grapple with in addition to what curriculum should cover. In the “Allied Issues” section of their article, they discuss issues such as social computing and knowing when to discard items (the end of its life cycle”. The authors claim that “ischool students do not need to have answers to these problems, but they need to have way to think about these and other issues that give them a broad perspective about the interests of the groups and micro-cultures that may be involved . . .” However, is it really enough that ischool students entering the world of librarianship only have “ways to think” about these issues? Shouldn’t we graduate with, in not definite answers, a formative action plan for various situations? Should ischools be providing students with more of a history about what’s been done in the past and what could or should be done in the future? Are “ideas” enough; is it even possible to have more than just that?
3. At the end other their article, Seadle and Greifeneder stress the importance of collaboration between cultures and the need for ischools to remain or become extremely interdisciplinary. They quote the University of Washington’s Information School’s mission statement: “’The Information School community is also dedicated to living what we study, teach, and share. This means that a collaborative culture is central to our work,” and suggest that, while schools certainly have to consider their limitations, that Washington’s direction is the right way to go. However, it seems to be the push for almost every field that collaboration is a must. Is this interdisciplinary approach really unique to ischools? Does it just reflect a shift to a “collaborative culture” in general? Is collaboration as important as Washington and the authors would like us to think?
1. Seadle and Griefeneder say that "the role of allied fields is especially important "and that is is urgently important that iSchools offer an interdisciplinary environment." How many fields are appropriate to add before iSchool programs become something like "Interdisciplinary Information Systems"? While there are so many relevant fields that can be a part of iSchools, are there any majors or fields that do not belong at all in iSchools?
2. Since "there is no simple consensus about what the right programme is,"do you think that is a detriment to the concept of iSchools? Should there be some standard knowledge or certificate or core classes that all students graduate with? I think it's a benefit that all iSchools are different because it makes graduates more marketable because of the variety and broadness of iSchool programs.
3. If you were to create your own unique curriculum like the authors, what three principles would you like your program to cover or embrace?
1. The proposed curriculum takes human computer interaction at the center and all other components depend on it. Keeping in mind the fact that an information school curriculum is interdisciplinary, can something be conceptualized as the central idea? If yes, can every course be related to it?
2. The author points out the power of words when interacting with a computer. The example of google image search is explained. Should google be able to interpret the search as a query and not as simple text? How far is this feasible? The text says accidental association with the text is reflected in the results, is this the case always?
3. One of the traditional jobs of a librarian is managing collections. It involves understanding the linguistic issues associated with the collections and also the readability. On the readability side, is it the responsibility of the iSchool students to convert recent standards to earlier versions for a particular section of users? Does managing include metadata conversion and study of various standards as well?
1) It seemed odd to me that the article proposed a curriculum model for iSchools that deemphasizes the user (Figure 1). While there is considerable variation in how much each information profession engages directly with the user, the goal of e.g. archives work is still to manage and preserve information in order that it might be used in the future. Is deemphasizing the user a wise choice for designing an iSchool curriculum?
2) While computers are certainly very important to the field, it seemed problematic to put HCI at the center of the iSchool curriculum, especially given how much information has not been (and sometimes cannot) be digitized. I am thinking of the management of visual art and artifacts here, as there is an immense amount of information in a given painting that simply cannot be conveyed by means other than looking at it in person, but this is just one example of a larger world of information that cannot be accessed by digital means. Should HCI be at the center of the curriculum, given this problem?
3) I was interested in the authors’ highlighting of the fact that information access is still based almost exclusively in language, even when the information being sought is not verbal. What kind of research is going on in the field to combat this problem with information retrieval? How can we begin to envision an information retrieval system that retrieves information based on visual input?
1. One of my issues with much of the literature in the field of information science stems from the desire to promote the information professional to the authority of a sense maker. I get the feeling that this author wants us to believe that all objects are secretly coded with significance that can be uncovered with a keen eye. I would argue that “analytical objectivity” is impossible when we are referring to semantically describing our experience with objects in the world and that our job shouldn’t be to try and “see the inner beauty.” Am I misreading here?
2. I am having a hard time accepting the idea that HCI should stand at the center of an iSchool curriculum. Such a notion would be like saying that AutoCAD should stand at the center of every architecture school because almost every blueprint is made in AutoCAD. If students don’t have a good understanding of the foundations of information science, then their ability to create usable HCI will be greatly diminished. Does anyone feel this way?
3. I agree that technology skills are playing an important role in the IS field and tend to agree with the author that students should be challenged to utilize and understand how to use these tools. However, I think that computer science professionals could also learn a lot from the field of IS and that learning how to communicate with others in the fields like CS, Anthropology, and Linguistics is a beneficial skill in itself. I would be interested in discussing how communication skills could be better integrated into professional preparation programs in which students have two years to pick up such a large knowledge base.
1. As someone whose main interest at the iSchool is HCI and UX, I'm not sure that I can get behind this articles proposed iSchool curriculum. They say that the core of the curriculum is HCI but only in so far as it affects traditional library topics typically taught in library schools. The article doesn't talk about specific HCI or UX areas of study and that is somewhat disappointing to me. If this proposed iSchool curriculum is centered around HCI, I think it should have HCI classes solely focused on HCI and not just how HCI applies to the other four areas dscussed.
2. The authors mention three key points that should be considered when implementing their proposed iSchool curriculum. Points 1 and 3 seem to specifically call out the need to heavily rely on HCI as a core subject in the proposed curriculum. Since these points are the pillars on which the curriculum is based and are heavily focused on HCI, a specific focus on the basic and advanced topics of HCI seem like very appropriate courses but are not included.
3. When I chose which graduate program to attend, I didn't do a whole lot of research into the other programs of other iSchools. Now that I have the experience I have, I would be interested to see what the curricula at other iSchools look like. How does UT Austins iSchool curriculum compare to other iSchools? Is it more or less focused on technology and HCI?
1. The authors give the example of Wayne State University in Detroit which emphasizes courses that map directly to jobs within current libraries, focusing less on courses which develop specific skills. Although not technically an iSchool, do you think this is a solid approach to take to the curriculum?
2. This isn’t a question, but rather an observation, that while Wang discussed within his article how HCI didn’t really have an established place, the new iSchool curriculum is centered around HCI. It’s interesting to see that evolution within just a matter of years. A question which could develop out of this observation, though, is do you think that the traditional library is being forgotten in this new proposed curriculum and is that a bad thing if so?
3. What exactly does the authors mean when they write their “proposed curriculum is an an abstract designed around a set of ideas, not around what is implementable in the classroom”? Don’t we want a curriculum which is implementable?
Have we lost touch with our past? Or has our future expectations from our users changed what we study in order to serve them? The expectation of how a "librarian" can help users has changed - it has grown outside of the library institution itself. The act of helping users find the information that they need has expanded way beyond the traditional definition of a library. It's now online, at public and private work, in databases, etc.
In Figure 1. iSchool curriculum model adding the four different managing "technology, culture, ecology, and collections" between the different "salient issues: the user, social computing, the information lifecycle, and access combined with preservation" is what really made this diagram complete is meaning for me.
Under the section "iSchool vs library school" Seadle stated "iSchools are sometimes criticized as lightweight computer science programs, and critics say that they have lost touch with the profession and its past." He later states "It is not the skill with the tool that iSchool students need, but an understanding of the decision-making that surrounds and informs the tool users, today mainly programmers, so that they can give directions to them." This thought builds on what we discussed in class this week. Are we getting a complete necessary skill set from our classes at the iSchool? Which topics or areas require deep understanding, and which simply require an introduction to concepts in order to do the actual work itself? Is this shifting? And are the employment opportunities / job postings out there providing what the user needs, as well as possessing the direct skill in technology to make this happen? Are we expected to wear multiple hats now?
1. As someone who took several classes on culture, anthropology and archaeology for my undergraduate degree, I was very in tune with what the authors had to say about iSchools teaching some of the basics of anthropology in their curricula, namely "iSchool students do not need to have answers to these problems, but they need to have a way to think about these and other issues that give them a broad perspective about the interests of the groups and micro-cultures that may be involved... to structure the information ecology and meet user needs." With that in mind, I have to say I've generally been puzzled why some of the core classes don't structure themselves more along the lines of the basics of anthropology. Anthropologists gather information from a variety of sources other than books (sources that according to Suzanne Dupuy-Briets could be called 'documents') and are taught to try to see things from multiple viewpoints.
2. At one point the opinion that "a collection of data in the most modern xml standard might be useless to users who have only relatively old software on their computers that cannot translate the new standard into text or images on the screen." While I understand what they mean is libraries should try to make everything they have accessible to as many people as possible, I feel as a standalone statement the authors are placing too much of the burden of responsibility upon libraries. Isn't patrons having outdated tech to some degree an unavoidable issue? Because honestly, you cannot predict how many of your users are Luddites or haven't upgraded their home systems in over 5 years. This is why most libraries (if they have the budget) provide computer access, because that is something they can control, and if the computers they have load the website, a solution to the access problem is addressed to the extent it's possible for the library.
3. In regards to the comments about Google's shortcomings (not being able to find people by descriptive terms, people using it to find outdated, inaccurate or incomplete information if they have problems with an OPAC), how many information science graduates instead of going to libraries are instead heading to places like Google, Yahoo!, etc. to help build a better search engine? Particularly since some of the other iSchools out there seem allied with their university's computer science department than UT's iSchool.
1. Seadle and Greifender claim that iSchools “are not preparing students for today’s libraries but for leadersip positions in tomorrow’s information structures.” How is it detrimental or beneficial to train students for the future rather than the present? Does it get students to push their future workplaces into the 21st century or lead to disappointment and frustration with the funds and technologies available at most future positions?
2. How is the language negotiation in a reference interview similar to the langauge negotiation in human computer interactions?
3. On page 10, Seadle and Greifeneder created a chart that shows the disciplines they feel library and information science relate to. Is this a comprehensive list? Do all of these disciplines relate back to and inform LIS to an equal degree?
1. The model that the authors propose for an ISchool Curriculum does not even mention 'Information' except in the margins referring to the information life cycle. HCI is the key concept in their model. Describe how the UT ISchool curriculum would change based on this model and whether or not it would be successful.
2. The authors mention a reference interview as "a language negotiation to trade vocabulary and improve understanding." What exactly is a reverence interview and how does it accomplish these things?
3. Seadle and Greifeneder include a section on Allied Issues. To what are they referring and why are Computer Science, Anthropology, Linguistics, Information Economy, Psychology, and Sociology included in this category?
1. The point that Human-computer interaction is the central of curriculum model is quite arguable. We have so many specialization other than HCI that has same or even more importance, why the author put the HCI at the Centre?
2. Author assumed that micro-culture can make iSchool students conscious of the communication difference across micro-cultures. However, in realty, why can’t people use the standard language that won’t lead to misunderstanding instead of micro-culture language.
3. It is mentioned that managing collections is one of the most traditional library jobs and is no less important in a digital age. So I am wondering if the data we are gathering today could be regarded as collections or equals to collections in library jobs in some way.
Seadle and Greifeneder speaking about a criticism of ischools in that they come across as a lightweight version of computer science. Are these criticisms valid? Or do they simply fail to understand the adaptive nature of the ischool and its shift from focusing on traditional methods to methods which embrace the advances in technology and information consumption?
Because language issues find themselves at the center of HCI and parts of the IS field as a whole communicating the needs of a particular user or group of users can become a daunting task. Does the inclusion of so many different disciplines within the ischool help create an environment that allows students to experience a wide array of views and communication differences? And should this be a fundamental approach championed by ischools to create a space which allows for interaction across so many disciplines?
This article views iSchools through an anthropological lense and lists several different potential LIS research topics in figure 2 which each potentially have their own unique view of information studies. How beneficial would it be for understanding the IS field and iSchools in general to have as many disciplines as possible explore the curriculum and future of the field as Seadle and Greifeneder have done?
1. The authors present the hazard that Google and internet searching present to libraries in general, as information becomes easier to locate for average users. Still, there are flaws to relying on Google as a primary source. Can libraries, especially public libraries, offer education and alternatives to this as a way to enlarge their role and further educate the public in information usage?
2. Managing collections is mentioned as a part of the possible iSchool curriculum. This is certainly a topical issue, and one which deserves great attention. In particular, the Dewey Decimal Classification has come under fire from some quarters for being too arcane for public library browsers, suggesting instead something more of a bookstore arrangement. Should these alternate collection methods be taught?
3. Lastly, curation of collections in public libraries is a matter fraught with controversy in many communities. The paper is about iSchool curricula in general, but all information has a life cycle, and this includes books at the local branch. In the past, some libraries have simply thrown books away rather than admit the library has to get rid of materials for space. Is it possible that donation or online transactional methods might mitigate these costs in the future, with less public reaction?
1. In this article, the author tries to find a unique iSchool curriculum. But is that possible? I think the disciplines taught in iSchool are all interdisciplinary. For example, HCI is combined computer science, information science, psychology, and design science. So the HCI courses in iSchool are based on the courses in those 4 fields and they cannot be unique. It is the same for other iSchool curriculum.
2. In the methodology section, the author says ‘we have used a methodology in writing this paper that draws heavily on anthropological traditions of observation and analysis’. So why does the author use anthropological methods to study iSchool curriculum. I think anthropology is totally different from information science or fields.
3. In the Figure 1, it shows us the model of iSchool curriculum. It seems that the core of this model is HCI. So why could HCI be the center of this model? And if it is true, I wonder why the core courses in our iSchool are not about HCI?
1. In this article the authors highlight the growing rift between the modern iSchool and traditional library schools. They state that library schools often teach practical skills that a librarian would need when working in a library while iSchools tend to focus on higher level positions and teaching students about how information interacts with the rest of the world on a more theoretical level. Do you agree with this description of library schools and iSchools? If so do you think that the differences in the way these schools work could lead to a rift in the LIS field? 2. In this article the authors argue that information science students are very similar to anthropologists. They argue that anthropologists and information scientists use similar methods and consider similar factors in their research. Do you agree with the idea that anthropologists and library scientists are very similar in their methodologies and considerations? 3. In this article the authors argue that the one field at the center of the information science field is Human Computer Interaction. They support this by arguing that all interaction in a library, or with information these days involves a computer in some way. Do you agree with this argument? Should Human Computer Interaction be at the center of information science research or is it merely one field among many in information science?
1. Seadle and Greifeneder compare iSchools to traditional LIS programs and compare the practical nature of traditional LIS programs to the broad social science based iSchool programs (p.4). Is there anything that is lost from not offering courses like the traditional or practical LIS program? The authors say that iSchool graduates are prepared for higher-level positions but are they ready for entry-level positions? Is more training involved if iSchool graduates go into libraries, which some do, and what are the costs to organizations that hire these individuals? 2. The idea that iSchools “are not preparing students for today’s libraries but for leadership positions in tomorrow’s information infrastructure, which they fully intend to create” is a grand and inspirational mission. Does this imply that people who want to work at libraries should not go to iSchools? It seems to me that the authors are making an assumption about libraries and how they will function in “tomorrow’s information infrastructure” that I don’t agree with. 3. A key principle behind the ideal iSchool curriculum in this article is the focus on human-computer interaction. The authors’ description of the failed Google search (p.6) because the lack of semantic understanding reminded me of the many failed searches I’ve conducted using library catalogs. While the incorporation of the semantic web into the iSchool curriculum is visionary in ways it is also essentially practical. When you look at the Stanford University Libraries Linked Open Data page you will find the Manifesto for Linked Libraries http://library.stanford.edu/projects/linked-data. Are libraries mimicking iSchool curriculum to prepare for the future information infrastructure or are iSchools still strongly influenced by their strong library past?
1. As an anthropologist, reading about Greifeneder and Seadle's use of anthropological perspective and ethnography was so exciting! As someone who is also engaged in both disciplines (anthropology and information studies), it is validating to see the ways in which these fields have already been in touch with one another. That being said I wish I'd had the chance to read this before I began graduate school, as the article suggests areas within the information field that could benefit from further study with an anthropological perspective. 2. More detailed information as to the authors/anthropologists ethnographic research methodology and how they reached their conclusions and recommendations would be helpful. How was the information they used in creating this study collected? Documented? Organized? Over what time period? 3. The authors posit that "iSchools are evolving quickly." I would be interested in a bit more detail here--what does this evolution look like? What has it looked like up until this point?
1. In the part discussing about "Ischool vs Library School", the author mentions two kinds of courses, one is "courses in subjects like "Development of a Relational Database using Access" or the "Basics of Archival Cataloguing"...by no means old-fashioned courses", and the other is "courses that focus ...directly to jobs with current libraries". Why does the author believe the former courses are old-fashioned? And how have the library jobs changed in recent years?
2.What is the meaning of studying on ischool curriculum? And why is it necessary to discuss what should ischool curriculum look like?
3. In the end of this article, the author claims that "ischool students do not need to have answers to these problems, but they need to have way to think about these and other issues ....to structure the information ecology and meet user needs". So, my third question is that how to value the completion of this studying target?
1. I’m curious about the authors’ statements on the verbally-oriented nature of HCI, especially their google image search example. “It failed because Google did not have a facility to translate what we as humans see in the pictures into words we use to describe them.” I actually don’t feel like I’ve come across this problem very often, and I wonder if it’s because when I do a google search, I’ve already been habituated to seek information in a way that is more google-friendly than human-friendly, thus limiting the ways I try to find something on the internet.
2. Can we talk about the word "ecology"? "Ecology", in its current scholarly iteration, is a buzzword I did not know existed until I came to the iSchool. How is it different from, say, environment? Does it have an added temporal aspect? More of a social aspect? Across all my courses there are increasing demands to think in terms of ecology (in this article: “The ecology of a library or information resource requires the same level of abstract consideration.”) How does one do that?
3. Social computing is a concept I’m not that familiar with. It appears in Figure 1 (iSchool Curriculum Model) and again under the heading “Allied Issues”. It is explained, “Social computing relates user cultures to a technology that enables interaction.” Is this just a sub-category of HCI or something all its own?
"Anthropologists traditionally visit some remote culture, learn the language, live among the natives, and then describe their habits and culture from an outside view with enough analytical objectivity and enough detail to evoke a credible picture." In the traditional model, it seems that first you decide/recognize that you are an anthropologist and then you go somewhere to observe. In the proposed model at the graduate level, doesn't it seem that students sometimes find out that they are anthropologists after they have arrived and then must look back at previous experience. By the time you look forward, your time is up. If this is true, what are the implications?
2."Diagramming ideas imposes limits on what is visually acceptable and practically readable. The issues outside of the boxes will change over time. The management tasks within the boxes seem to us to have greater structural permanence in any information organization." Would it be fair to say that if we were to apply the model to a time before computers existed (and dinosaurs ruled the earth), HCI could be replaced with human-technology interaction ("HTI") where technology can be papyrus, book, etc...?
3. Does replacing HCI with HTI in the example above weaken their model or strengthen their model?
1. I thought it was interesting to view iSchools from an anthropological perspective, a. because it made reading this work a lot more enjoyable, and b. because we seem to run into dead ends when we try to answer questions about our program ourselves. Having an outsider's perspective, someone who has infiltrated the group and been welcomed in by the natives (if IS, as interdisciplinary as it is, can truly have natives), was refreshing.
2. I felt that the section about linguistics and its relation to IS and iSchool curricula ended rather abruptly; I'd have liked a more detailed description or a nicer conclusion, or at least more information about what iSchools are doing to address these types of issues, rather than the "Luckily, iSchools are starting to take up issues of semantics" kind of blow-off ending. Hopefully I'll get what I'm looking for when we cover linguistic issues later in this course.
3. It seems strange to me that HCI would be placed at the heart of IS as a discipline. To be sure, interactions with technology are a core part of what we as information scientists and professionals must do, but I really feel that the core of information science is connecting people with information, a transaction that is sometimes (often) mediated by technology. Rather than situating this as the focus of IS, I feel it's better described as a means to an end.
1. In this article, the author emphasizes the importance of the anthropology in ischool system and they pointed out the background of the anthropologists in the study, "The anthropologists in our study, Greifeneder and Seadle, have acquired a moderately competent grasp of the iSchool idiom, and speak reasonably fluent conventional library jargon as well. Seadle comes from a varied academic background with decades of experience using anthropological methods and with long years of acculturation among computing professionals." So combined with the conceptual framework Zhang and Benjamin raised among People, Technology, information and Org. & Society, can we understand the authors think people in ischool curriculum play a more important role than other components?
2. In the ischool vs library school section, the authors mentioned one difference that is an increased focus on the job market for graduates beyond traditional library employment. After traditional library school incorporated with other information-related programs, the graduates dive into a broader marketplace. So my question is back to why traditional library schools start to evolve into the ischool? to cater to the job market?
3. For the ischool curriculum model, I cannot agree with the reason they gave to put Human-computer interaction at the center of the model. They states that Human-computer interaction stands at the centre of our diagram because in practical terms all information access in traditional and digital libraries now operates through computer-based systems. If accessing through computer-based systems can be supportive statement, then HCI can be put at the center of any schools` curriculum model.
1 Why the author choose anthropology as an aspect to view our iSchool's curriculum. If we look iSchool within another context or disciplines, would we come out a different result of HCI-centered curriculum?
ReplyDelete2 The author in the end mentions that library and information science has no method of its own and thus should borrow whatever methods best suit the researcher and the topic. What kinds of methods we borrow from other disciplines? How do we know we can combine certain topic with certain methods?
3 How could this curriculum of iSchool can help to or improve or relate to our job hunting, the goal for students who enroll in iSchool.
1. 1. I read Xioning's comment! I read it! forgive me! But I do have the exact same #1 question. The authors chose this approach because Seadles is an anthropologist. They also privilege linguistics because Greifeneder comes from a linguistics background. I found both of these very insightful and fascinating approaches, especially when combined, but I did also wonder how the suggested model curriciulum might differ if using approaches from other tangentially related fields? I would actually like to see a Zins-style paper exploring this (but with completely different organization and formatting in its delivery, it should go without saying!).
ReplyDelete2. For all their claims of interdisciplinarity, I was struck with the authors' choice to explicitly ignore the humanities-based roots of library science (and thus information science), with them even going so far as to state that "Instead of classes on the history of the book, iSchools offer classes on human-computer interaction. Instead of studying printing, students take classes in electronic publishing." This dovetails with my comment on the Zhang and Benjamin article (and was quite striking to me as I read these back-to-back): "ignoring the long history of bibliographic and textual studies from the field of English seems short-sighted (especially since arguments about how to define a "text vs. a "work" and tortured discussions about the concept of authorship currently make up the bulk of each week's discussion in my "Metadata in Cultural Heritage Institutions" class!)." I wonder what a similar model curriculum centering the textual studies approaching would look like, how it would differ, challenge, or exceed Seadle and Greifeneder's. And, while I take their points (and, largely, agree), I would definitely make the argument that "traditional" study of books as objects, the history of printing and education, and theoretical explorations of authorship, works, editors, etc. are still vital to understanding library and archives work (which, after all, is still why many - most? - students pursue postgraduate degrees in IS). I wonder if a refutation to this point has been written by anyone from within the I-School movement?
3. On page 10, the authors highlight the need for development of a strong and applicable research methodology for I-School students and scholars. As a first-year, this really hit home; they say students too often have an area of interest, "but have no problem they want to solve and no method to use for analysis." What are some ways into this problem? What methodologies are in use? Borrowed from related fields? Failures? Developing? How do we determine which research methods are best-suited to the I-model, and how might we build in a capacity for evolution as the field continues to expand and change?
2 - Although I've already responded to your question in the Zhang article, I'm curious as to what you consider/identify as the "humanities-based roots of library science" - do you have authors or an historical background where I could learn more? I ask mostly because this is newer territory for me, as an archives student, where our roots are firmly in the legal/political system and have only recently (well..like last century) expanded towards humanities, and my understanding of library history is limited to what I know of Ranganathan and Dewey, neither of whom came from the Humanities (although Dewey was a bibliophile, I believe his degree was in Education.)
Delete1 - Do folks agree with putting HCI in the center of the iSchool diagram? I understand that many human experiences are now mediated by technology, but I don’t always view that as specifically HCI. Yes, I know that Human-Computer Interaction logically makes sense in the most literal understanding, but I would argue that the technology needs and interactions the authors are attempting to encompass with the label are too broad to all fit under the banner of HCI. I’m not sure what I would put in the middle, perhaps “semiotics.”
ReplyDelete2 - What I’m seeing and reading from the article, although it’s probably just my own bias, is that iSchools tend to give students the technical skills to do a decent entry-level job, but don’t adequately prepare them for positions as project managers/administrators. For example, AEI might teach a student how to process a collection, but processing is the bare-minimum in terms of job expectations. As discussed in class last week --what type of program are we owed, or should we expect, and what should we learn the hard way by doing things in the real world? I would also be curious to see if people who attend iSchools straight from undergraduate/graduate education fare any differently than those who have previously held full time positions.
1. The authors, both at the beginning and end of their article, site that a strong grasp of linguistic issues is integral to an iSchool curriculum and iSchoolers success in their field. I agree with this to a point, but when speaking of classes students should take, I did not see that they mentioned something akin to a Linguistics 101 course. They also write that there is a need for iSchools to be highly interdisciplinary, but I feel that is already the case. Even looking around our class, you see people with a wide range of undergraduate degrees. I think it simply comes down to being well-rounded.
ReplyDelete2. I find it interesting how the authors write about the ‘ecology’ of libraries and other institutions. It makes me think of how people I know speak of the various departments within libraries and archives like a very delicate ecosystems, and any introduction of something new into their ecosystem would interrupt the delicate balance they have cultivated and potentially destroy said ecosystem. Have librarians et al., in the past and possibly currently, really been so adverse to new things? Is that one reason we could say that libraries seem somewhat ‘behind’ or antiquated to many individuals? Is there an aversion to embrace new theories, technologies, and user needs?
3. Towards the end of the article, Seadle and Greifeneder cite that research should be yet another integral part of an iSchooler’s education. But the way that they present this proposal, makes me think that they are simply looking for students to help them with their research. While I agree that understanding research and being able to thoroughly conduct research are important skills to have, I completely disagree with what I see as research for research’s sake. I will make a sweeping generalization by saying that I don’t think the majority of iSchool students are looking for a career in academia, and so I believe, for example, that a focus on research thorough out my two years at the iSchool, would detract from other paths that are more important. What role should research really play in a student of information’s education?
1 - While I consider the iSchool interdisciplinary because people come from a variety of backgrounds, in speaking specifically to UT's program, where I see a serious lack is the school's actual engagement with the rest of the university's academics. Since I work in two programs, I've seen how the iSchool communicates--or fails to communicate--with other specializations. I would love to see a broader exchange of ideas between the iSchool and other academic departments on campus, especially within the Humanities, since Information Science is becoming a popular topic amongst academics who don't always fully comprehend what Information Science is or does. I've also heard from a variety of sources that it can be hard to receive support from the iSchool when pursuing classes outside of the department, or areas of study that don't already have a professor/advisor doing research in those areas. I definitely agree about being more well-rounded! Having a broad understanding of academic research areas will prove useful in the future, as our jobs will almost always have an aspect involving connecting people to appropriate information.
Delete1. I read this paper from the end to the start and surprisingly found that the author put "...2) teach students to think like anthropologists and look at the problems and issues from multiple viewpoints, multiple cultures, and multiple ecologies; ..." in his conclusion. What's the point of connecting anthropology to information studies? Why do we need study information or HCI that was considered the centre of iSchool education with the perspectives of anthropology? Jobs is the master of observing, exploiting and organizing information while I highly doubt he got any trainings concerning anthropology. "If there is a hammer in one's hand, everything looks like a nail in his mind." All is about the occupation of the author, an anthropologist.
ReplyDelete2. Putting HCI in the centre of all information service is another unconvincing conclusion in the paper. Information involves hundreds of aspects within its thousand-year development and HCI is just one of them. Though HCI is one of the hottest topic for now, is it really so important in the information field?
3. The author used "iSchool Vs. library school" as the title of one section in the paper. However, is it necessary to put them in the contrary tracks? At some points we can tell that modern technologies concerning information storage and management are the extensions of traditional archiving skills in libraries. In this sense, they are more connected than separated.
1. In this article, the author talked about the methodology of observation and analysis as anthropological traditional methodology. He also discussed the concept of micro-culture. However, I am not sure is there a strong connection between iSchool curriculum provision and anthropology. At the end of this article, the author offers three key principles, one of them are teaching students to think like anthropologists. In this way, it seems like the anthropology become a part of the curriculum but not the methodology of this study.
ReplyDelete2. In the last paragraph of “iSchool vs library school”, the author said iSchools are not preparing students for today's libraries but for leadership positions in tomorrow's information infrastructure, which they fully intend to help create. Was the definition too extreme? The iSchools still have the responsibility to cultivate students who want to become librarians or archive. Even for students in iSchool who want to be in leadership positions, they also can have different missions except for transformative.
3. It is true that language both enables and limits the ability to communicate with contemporary information systems. However, I think the author want to demonstrate this point by providing examples of image searching, which is confusing. In the part of “Human-computer interaction at the center”, the author searched “seadle” and "photo of Michael seadle" to find difference but not satisfied with the result. I searched “seadle” and "photo of Michael seadle" in Google Image as he did, found out that the result was becoming better. Maybe the technology developed a lot. Is this technological development related to iSchool fields?
1. When the author argues to put HCI in the center of the iSchool curriculum, his focus is on the retrieval of the information. And his reason for the argument is merely of the prevalence of computer as the tool. I agree to put HCI in the center of iSchool curriculum, but more because of the the human centered perspective, the iterative process, the combination of the perspectives of different fields of HCI.
ReplyDelete2. I totally agree to treat IS as a content-defined discipline and borrow methods from other fields that best suit the researcher and topic. This is what HCI is best at. This is also reflected from the Visualizing Archival Data (VADA) project that I work for Dr. Francisco-Revilla and Dr. Trace. APT uses data mining and data visualization in archival science and achieved interesting findings in how archivist organize their collection and the current practice in Texas archives.
3. The author proposes three key principles in designing the iSchool curriculum: HCI, anthropological methodology and awareness of linguistics issues in communicating with computer systems. But what’s the connection between these three? And is there a priority among these three when adopting these principles?
1. In their article, Seadle and Greifeneder discuss the difference between ischools and library schools. They point out the shift in ischools from traditional library classes to a more computer-science based curriculum, and state that “iSchools are sometimes criticized as lightweight computer science programmes and critics say that they have lost touch with
ReplyDeletethe profession and its past.” Is there validity to this criticism? I think that every time
something changes, there will be people who resent that change and who want things to revert back – especially when “tradition” is involved. However, are ischools losing touch with what libraries are “supposed” to be, or is this current evolution merely a reflection of our changing culture?
2. Seadle and Greifeneder also discuss some additional issues ischool students may have to grapple with in addition to what curriculum should cover. In the “Allied Issues” section of their article, they discuss issues such as social computing and knowing when to discard items (the end of its life cycle”. The authors claim that “ischool students do not need to have answers to these problems, but they need to have way to think about these and other issues that give them a broad perspective about the interests of the groups and micro-cultures that may be involved . . .” However, is it really enough that ischool students entering the world of librarianship only have “ways to think” about these issues? Shouldn’t we graduate with, in not definite answers, a formative action plan for various situations? Should ischools be providing students with more of a history about what’s been done in the past and what could or should be done in the future? Are “ideas” enough; is it even possible to have more than just that?
3. At the end other their article, Seadle and Greifeneder stress the importance of collaboration between cultures and the need for ischools to remain or become extremely interdisciplinary. They quote the University of Washington’s Information School’s mission statement: “’The Information School community is also dedicated to living what we study, teach, and share. This means that a collaborative culture is central to our work,” and suggest that, while schools certainly have to consider their limitations, that Washington’s direction is the right way to go. However, it seems to be the push for
almost every field that collaboration is a must. Is this interdisciplinary approach really unique to ischools? Does it just reflect a shift to a “collaborative culture” in general? Is collaboration as important as Washington and the authors would like us to think?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Seadle and Griefeneder say that "the role of allied fields is especially important "and that is is urgently important that iSchools offer an interdisciplinary environment." How many fields are appropriate to add before iSchool programs become something like "Interdisciplinary Information Systems"? While there are so many relevant fields that can be a part of iSchools, are there any majors or fields that do not belong at all in iSchools?
ReplyDelete2. Since "there is no simple consensus about what the right programme is,"do you think that is a detriment to the concept of iSchools? Should there be some standard knowledge or certificate or core classes that all students graduate with? I think it's a benefit that all iSchools are different because it makes graduates more marketable because of the variety and broadness of iSchool programs.
3. If you were to create your own unique curriculum like the authors, what three principles would you like your program to cover or embrace?
1. The proposed curriculum takes human computer interaction at the center and all other components depend on it. Keeping in mind the fact that an information school curriculum is interdisciplinary, can something be conceptualized as the central idea? If yes, can every course be related to it?
ReplyDelete2. The author points out the power of words when interacting with a computer. The example of google image search is explained. Should google be able to interpret the search as a query and not as simple text? How far is this feasible? The text says accidental association with the text is reflected in the results, is this the case always?
3. One of the traditional jobs of a librarian is managing collections. It involves understanding the linguistic issues associated with the collections and also the readability. On the readability side, is it the responsibility of the iSchool students to convert recent standards to earlier versions for a particular section of users? Does managing include metadata conversion and study of various standards as well?
1) It seemed odd to me that the article proposed a curriculum model for iSchools that deemphasizes the user (Figure 1). While there is considerable variation in how much each information profession engages directly with the user, the goal of e.g. archives work is still to manage and preserve information in order that it might be used in the future. Is deemphasizing the user a wise choice for designing an iSchool curriculum?
ReplyDelete2) While computers are certainly very important to the field, it seemed problematic to put HCI at the center of the iSchool curriculum, especially given how much information has not been (and sometimes cannot) be digitized. I am thinking of the management of visual art and artifacts here, as there is an immense amount of information in a given painting that simply cannot be conveyed by means other than looking at it in person, but this is just one example of a larger world of information that cannot be accessed by digital means. Should HCI be at the center of the curriculum, given this problem?
3) I was interested in the authors’ highlighting of the fact that information access is still based almost exclusively in language, even when the information being sought is not verbal. What kind of research is going on in the field to combat this problem with information retrieval? How can we begin to envision an information retrieval system that retrieves information based on visual input?
1. One of my issues with much of the literature in the field of information science stems from the desire to promote the information professional to the authority of a sense maker. I get the feeling that this author wants us to believe that all objects are secretly coded with significance that can be uncovered with a keen eye. I would argue that “analytical objectivity” is impossible when we are referring to semantically describing our experience with objects in the world and that our job shouldn’t be to try and “see the inner beauty.” Am I misreading here?
ReplyDelete2. I am having a hard time accepting the idea that HCI should stand at the center of an iSchool curriculum. Such a notion would be like saying that AutoCAD should stand at the center of every architecture school because almost every blueprint is made in AutoCAD. If students don’t have a good understanding of the foundations of information science, then their ability to create usable HCI will be greatly diminished. Does anyone feel this way?
3. I agree that technology skills are playing an important role in the IS field and tend to agree with the author that students should be challenged to utilize and understand how to use these tools. However, I think that computer science professionals could also learn a lot from the field of IS and that learning how to communicate with others in the fields like CS, Anthropology, and Linguistics is a beneficial skill in itself. I would be interested in discussing how communication skills could be better integrated into professional preparation programs in which students have two years to pick up such a large knowledge base.
1. As someone whose main interest at the iSchool is HCI and UX, I'm not sure that I can get behind this articles proposed iSchool curriculum. They say that the core of the curriculum is HCI but only in so far as it affects traditional library topics typically taught in library schools. The article doesn't talk about specific HCI or UX areas of study and that is somewhat disappointing to me. If this proposed iSchool curriculum is centered around HCI, I think it should have HCI classes solely focused on HCI and not just how HCI applies to the other four areas dscussed.
ReplyDelete2. The authors mention three key points that should be considered when implementing their proposed iSchool curriculum. Points 1 and 3 seem to specifically call out the need to heavily rely on HCI as a core subject in the proposed curriculum. Since these points are the pillars on which the curriculum is based and are heavily focused on HCI, a specific focus on the basic and advanced topics of HCI seem like very appropriate courses but are not included.
3. When I chose which graduate program to attend, I didn't do a whole lot of research into the other programs of other iSchools. Now that I have the experience I have, I would be interested to see what the curricula at other iSchools look like. How does UT Austins iSchool curriculum compare to other iSchools? Is it more or less focused on technology and HCI?
1. The authors give the example of Wayne State University in Detroit which emphasizes courses that map directly to jobs within current libraries, focusing less on courses which develop specific skills. Although not technically an iSchool, do you think this is a solid approach to take to the curriculum?
ReplyDelete2. This isn’t a question, but rather an observation, that while Wang discussed within his article how HCI didn’t really have an established place, the new iSchool curriculum is centered around HCI. It’s interesting to see that evolution within just a matter of years. A question which could develop out of this observation, though, is do you think that the traditional library is being forgotten in this new proposed curriculum and is that a bad thing if so?
3. What exactly does the authors mean when they write their “proposed curriculum is an an abstract designed around a set of ideas, not around what is implementable in the classroom”? Don’t we want a curriculum which is implementable?
Have we lost touch with our past? Or has our future expectations from our users changed what we study in order to serve them? The expectation of how a "librarian" can help users has changed - it has grown outside of the library institution itself. The act of helping users find the information that they need has expanded way beyond the traditional definition of a library. It's now online, at public and private work, in databases, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn Figure 1. iSchool curriculum model adding the four different managing "technology, culture, ecology, and collections" between the different "salient issues: the user, social computing, the information lifecycle, and access combined with preservation" is what really made this diagram complete is meaning for me.
Under the section "iSchool vs library school" Seadle stated "iSchools are sometimes criticized as lightweight computer science programs, and critics say that they have lost touch with the profession and its past." He later states "It is not the skill with the tool that iSchool students need, but an understanding of the decision-making that surrounds and informs the tool users, today mainly programmers, so that they can give directions to them." This thought builds on what we discussed in class this week. Are we getting a complete necessary skill set from our classes at the iSchool? Which topics or areas require deep understanding, and which simply require an introduction to concepts in order to do the actual work itself? Is this shifting? And are the employment opportunities / job postings out there providing what the user needs, as well as possessing the direct skill in technology to make this happen? Are we expected to wear multiple hats now?
1. As someone who took several classes on culture, anthropology and archaeology for my undergraduate degree, I was very in tune with what the authors had to say about iSchools teaching some of the basics of anthropology in their curricula, namely "iSchool students do not need to have answers to these problems, but they need to have a way to think about these and other issues that give them a broad perspective about the interests of the groups and micro-cultures that may be involved... to structure the information ecology and meet user needs." With that in mind, I have to say I've generally been puzzled why some of the core classes don't structure themselves more along the lines of the basics of anthropology. Anthropologists gather information from a variety of sources other than books (sources that according to Suzanne Dupuy-Briets could be called 'documents') and are taught to try to see things from multiple viewpoints.
ReplyDelete2. At one point the opinion that "a collection of data in the most modern xml standard might be useless to users who have only relatively old software on their computers that cannot translate the new standard into text or images on the screen." While I understand what they mean is libraries should try to make everything they have accessible to as many people as possible, I feel as a standalone statement the authors are placing too much of the burden of responsibility upon libraries. Isn't patrons having outdated tech to some degree an unavoidable issue? Because honestly, you cannot predict how many of your users are Luddites or haven't upgraded their home systems in over 5 years. This is why most libraries (if they have the budget) provide computer access, because that is something they can control, and if the computers they have load the website, a solution to the access problem is addressed to the extent it's possible for the library.
3. In regards to the comments about Google's shortcomings (not being able to find people by descriptive terms, people using it to find outdated, inaccurate or incomplete information if they have problems with an OPAC), how many information science graduates instead of going to libraries are instead heading to places like Google, Yahoo!, etc. to help build a better search engine? Particularly since some of the other iSchools out there seem allied with their university's computer science department than UT's iSchool.
1. Seadle and Greifender claim that iSchools “are not preparing students for today’s libraries but for leadersip positions in tomorrow’s information structures.” How is it detrimental or beneficial to train students for the future rather than the present? Does it get students to push their future workplaces into the 21st century or lead to disappointment and frustration with the funds and technologies available at most future positions?
ReplyDelete2. How is the language negotiation in a reference interview similar to the langauge negotiation in human computer interactions?
3. On page 10, Seadle and Greifeneder created a chart that shows the disciplines they feel library and information science relate to. Is this a comprehensive list? Do all of these disciplines relate back to and inform LIS to an equal degree?
1. The model that the authors propose for an ISchool Curriculum does not even mention 'Information' except in the margins referring to the information life cycle. HCI is the key concept in their model. Describe how the UT ISchool curriculum would change based on this model and whether or not it would be successful.
ReplyDelete2. The authors mention a reference interview as "a language negotiation to trade vocabulary and improve understanding." What exactly is a reverence interview and how does it accomplish these things?
3. Seadle and Greifeneder include a section on Allied Issues. To what are they referring and why are Computer Science, Anthropology, Linguistics, Information Economy, Psychology, and Sociology included in this category?
1. The point that Human-computer interaction is the central of curriculum model is quite arguable. We have so many specialization other than HCI that has same or even more importance, why the author put the HCI at the Centre?
ReplyDelete2. Author assumed that micro-culture can make iSchool students conscious of the communication difference across micro-cultures. However, in realty, why can’t people use the standard language that won’t lead to misunderstanding instead of micro-culture language.
3. It is mentioned that managing collections is one of the most traditional library jobs and is no less important in a digital age. So I am wondering if the data we are gathering today could be regarded as collections or equals to collections in library jobs in some way.
Seadle and Greifeneder speaking about a criticism of ischools in that they come across as a lightweight version of computer science. Are these criticisms valid? Or do they simply fail to understand the adaptive nature of the ischool and its shift from focusing on traditional methods to methods which embrace the advances in technology and information consumption?
ReplyDeleteBecause language issues find themselves at the center of HCI and parts of the IS field as a whole communicating the needs of a particular user or group of users can become a daunting task. Does the inclusion of so many different disciplines within the ischool help create an environment that allows students to experience a wide array of views and communication differences? And should this be a fundamental approach championed by ischools to create a space which allows for interaction across so many disciplines?
This article views iSchools through an anthropological lense and lists several different potential LIS research topics in figure 2 which each potentially have their own unique view of information studies. How beneficial would it be for understanding the IS field and iSchools in general to have as many disciplines as possible explore the curriculum and future of the field as Seadle and Greifeneder have done?
1. The authors present the hazard that Google and internet searching present to libraries in general, as information becomes easier to locate for average users. Still, there are flaws to relying on Google as a primary source. Can libraries, especially public libraries, offer education and alternatives to this as a way to enlarge their role and further educate the public in information usage?
ReplyDelete2. Managing collections is mentioned as a part of the possible iSchool curriculum. This is certainly a topical issue, and one which deserves great attention. In particular, the Dewey Decimal Classification has come under fire from some quarters for being too arcane for public library browsers, suggesting instead something more of a bookstore arrangement. Should these alternate collection methods be taught?
3. Lastly, curation of collections in public libraries is a matter fraught with controversy in many communities. The paper is about iSchool curricula in general, but all information has a life cycle, and this includes books at the local branch. In the past, some libraries have simply thrown books away rather than admit the library has to get rid of materials for space. Is it possible that donation or online transactional methods might mitigate these costs in the future, with less public reaction?
1. In this article, the author tries to find a unique iSchool curriculum. But is that possible? I think the disciplines taught in iSchool are all interdisciplinary. For example, HCI is combined computer science, information science, psychology, and design science. So the HCI courses in iSchool are based on the courses in those 4 fields and they cannot be unique. It is the same for other iSchool curriculum.
ReplyDelete2. In the methodology section, the author says ‘we have used a methodology in writing this paper that draws heavily on anthropological traditions of observation and analysis’. So why does the author use anthropological methods to study iSchool curriculum. I think anthropology is totally different from information science or fields.
3. In the Figure 1, it shows us the model of iSchool curriculum. It seems that the core of this model is HCI. So why could HCI be the center of this model? And if it is true, I wonder why the core courses in our iSchool are not about HCI?
1. In this article the authors highlight the growing rift between the modern iSchool and traditional library schools. They state that library schools often teach practical skills that a librarian would need when working in a library while iSchools tend to focus on higher level positions and teaching students about how information interacts with the rest of the world on a more theoretical level. Do you agree with this description of library schools and iSchools? If so do you think that the differences in the way these schools work could lead to a rift in the LIS field?
ReplyDelete2. In this article the authors argue that information science students are very similar to anthropologists. They argue that anthropologists and information scientists use similar methods and consider similar factors in their research. Do you agree with the idea that anthropologists and library scientists are very similar in their methodologies and considerations?
3. In this article the authors argue that the one field at the center of the information science field is Human Computer Interaction. They support this by arguing that all interaction in a library, or with information these days involves a computer in some way. Do you agree with this argument? Should Human Computer Interaction be at the center of information science research or is it merely one field among many in information science?
1. Seadle and Greifeneder compare iSchools to traditional LIS programs and compare the practical nature of traditional LIS programs to the broad social science based iSchool programs (p.4). Is there anything that is lost from not offering courses like the traditional or practical LIS program? The authors say that iSchool graduates are prepared for higher-level positions but are they ready for entry-level positions? Is more training involved if iSchool graduates go into libraries, which some do, and what are the costs to organizations that hire these individuals?
ReplyDelete2. The idea that iSchools “are not preparing students for today’s libraries but for leadership positions in tomorrow’s information infrastructure, which they fully intend to create” is a grand and inspirational mission. Does this imply that people who want to work at libraries should not go to iSchools? It seems to me that the authors are making an assumption about libraries and how they will function in “tomorrow’s information infrastructure” that I don’t agree with.
3. A key principle behind the ideal iSchool curriculum in this article is the focus on human-computer interaction. The authors’ description of the failed Google search (p.6) because the lack of semantic understanding reminded me of the many failed searches I’ve conducted using library catalogs. While the incorporation of the semantic web into the iSchool curriculum is visionary in ways it is also essentially practical. When you look at the Stanford University Libraries Linked Open Data page you will find the Manifesto for Linked Libraries http://library.stanford.edu/projects/linked-data. Are libraries mimicking iSchool curriculum to prepare for the future information infrastructure or are iSchools still strongly influenced by their strong library past?
1. As an anthropologist, reading about Greifeneder and Seadle's use of anthropological perspective and ethnography was so exciting! As someone who is also engaged in both disciplines (anthropology and information studies), it is validating to see the ways in which these fields have already been in touch with one another. That being said I wish I'd had the chance to read this before I began graduate school, as the article suggests areas within the information field that could benefit from further study with an anthropological perspective.
ReplyDelete2. More detailed information as to the authors/anthropologists ethnographic research methodology and how they reached their conclusions and recommendations would be helpful. How was the information they used in creating this study collected? Documented? Organized? Over what time period?
3. The authors posit that "iSchools are evolving quickly." I would be interested in a bit more detail here--what does this evolution look like? What has it looked like up until this point?
1. In the part discussing about "Ischool vs Library School", the author mentions two kinds of courses, one is "courses in subjects like "Development of a Relational Database using Access" or the "Basics of Archival Cataloguing"...by no means old-fashioned courses", and the other is "courses that focus ...directly to jobs with current libraries". Why does the author believe the former courses are old-fashioned? And how have the library jobs changed in recent years?
ReplyDelete2.What is the meaning of studying on ischool curriculum? And why is it necessary to discuss what should ischool curriculum look like?
3. In the end of this article, the author claims that "ischool students do not need to have answers to these problems, but they need to have way to think about these and other issues ....to structure the information ecology and meet user needs". So, my third question is that how to value the completion of this studying target?
1. I’m curious about the authors’ statements on the verbally-oriented nature of HCI, especially their google image search example. “It failed because Google did not have a facility to translate what we as humans see in the pictures into words we use to describe them.” I actually don’t feel like I’ve come across this problem very often, and I wonder if it’s because when I do a google search, I’ve already been habituated to seek information in a way that is more google-friendly than human-friendly, thus limiting the ways I try to find something on the internet.
ReplyDelete2. Can we talk about the word "ecology"? "Ecology", in its current scholarly iteration, is a buzzword I did not know existed until I came to the iSchool. How is it different from, say, environment? Does it have an added temporal aspect? More of a social aspect? Across all my courses there are increasing demands to think in terms of ecology (in this article: “The ecology of a library or information resource requires the same level of abstract consideration.”) How does one do that?
3. Social computing is a concept I’m not that familiar with. It appears in Figure 1 (iSchool Curriculum Model) and again under the heading “Allied Issues”. It is explained, “Social computing relates user cultures to a technology that enables interaction.” Is this just a sub-category of HCI or something all its own?
"Anthropologists traditionally visit some remote culture, learn the language, live among the natives, and then describe their habits and culture from an outside view with enough analytical objectivity and enough detail to evoke a credible picture." In the traditional model, it seems that first you decide/recognize that you are an anthropologist and then you go somewhere to observe. In the proposed model at the graduate level, doesn't it seem that students sometimes find out that they are anthropologists after they have arrived and then must look back at previous experience. By the time you look forward, your time is up. If this is true, what are the implications?
ReplyDelete2."Diagramming ideas imposes limits on what is visually acceptable and practically readable. The issues outside of the boxes will change over time. The management tasks within the boxes seem to us to have greater structural permanence in any information organization." Would it be fair to say that if we were to apply the model to a time before computers existed (and dinosaurs ruled the earth), HCI could be replaced with human-technology interaction ("HTI") where technology can be papyrus, book, etc...?
3. Does replacing HCI with HTI in the example above weaken their model or strengthen their model?
1. I thought it was interesting to view iSchools from an anthropological perspective, a. because it made reading this work a lot more enjoyable, and b. because we seem to run into dead ends when we try to answer questions about our program ourselves. Having an outsider's perspective, someone who has infiltrated the group and been welcomed in by the natives (if IS, as interdisciplinary as it is, can truly have natives), was refreshing.
ReplyDelete2. I felt that the section about linguistics and its relation to IS and iSchool curricula ended rather abruptly; I'd have liked a more detailed description or a nicer conclusion, or at least more information about what iSchools are doing to address these types of issues, rather than the "Luckily, iSchools are starting to take up issues of semantics" kind of blow-off ending. Hopefully I'll get what I'm looking for when we cover linguistic issues later in this course.
3. It seems strange to me that HCI would be placed at the heart of IS as a discipline. To be sure, interactions with technology are a core part of what we as information scientists and professionals must do, but I really feel that the core of information science is connecting people with information, a transaction that is sometimes (often) mediated by technology. Rather than situating this as the focus of IS, I feel it's better described as a means to an end.
1. In this article, the author emphasizes the importance of the anthropology in ischool system and they pointed out the background of the anthropologists in the study, "The anthropologists in our study, Greifeneder and Seadle, have acquired a moderately competent grasp of the iSchool idiom, and speak reasonably fluent conventional library jargon as well. Seadle comes from a varied academic background with decades of experience using anthropological methods and with long years of acculturation among computing professionals." So combined with the conceptual framework Zhang and Benjamin raised among People, Technology, information and Org. & Society, can we understand the authors think people in ischool curriculum play a more important role than other components?
ReplyDelete2. In the ischool vs library school section, the authors mentioned one difference that is an increased focus on the job market for graduates beyond traditional library employment. After traditional library school incorporated with other information-related programs, the graduates dive into a broader marketplace. So my question is back to why traditional library schools start to evolve into the ischool? to cater to the job market?
3. For the ischool curriculum model, I cannot agree with the reason they gave to put Human-computer interaction at the center of the model. They states that Human-computer interaction stands at the centre of our diagram because in practical terms all information access in traditional and digital libraries now operates through computer-based systems. If accessing through computer-based systems can be supportive statement, then HCI can be put at the center of any schools` curriculum model.